Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

That is a misconception, though unfortunately a common one. The real situation was that a single scientist on the project posited that it might, all of the others disproved it mathematically, he irresponsibly went to the press, and they kicked him out. That's the truth, though it makes a much less sensational headline.

There is a crucial flaw in your argument: Neither animals nor children can give informed consent, and that is why marriages with them are not permitted. I don't think anyone can argue that homosexual persons are incapable of giving informed consent.

(Group marriages are an entirely different issue, because society has come to associate them both with shady tax manipulation as well as underage 'marriages'. Those were the reasons they were made illegal, rather than any inherent issue. I personally have no interest in group marriages, but feel that they should be permitted provided that 1.) They provide no financial benefit beyond what a single marriage provides [thus eliminating the shady tax manipulation] and 2.) that they follow the existing laws regarding informed consent [thus eliminating the pedophilia sub-issue])

tl;dr:
1.) Restrictions who is eligible for marriage should be limited to issues of consent
2.) Financial benefits from marriage should be identical in all cases

Anything beyond that is not the government's business.

On a side topic, I find myself wondering how long the Republican Party can continue to exist as a single entity, when it has two diametrically opposed motivations. Motivation #1 is 'small government' - that the government should stay out of citizens' private lives. Motivation #2 is the 'moral crusade' - the portion of the party that feels that gay marriage is immoral, etc. These motivations are opposed because while #1 decries any invasion of individuals' right to make their own choices, #2 requires such invasions to succeed.

Backspace or alt+left_arrow for back, alt+right_arrow for forward. HTH, HAND.
Firefox for Linux disables backspace acting as back in the default build, but you can re-enable it by setting browser.backspace_action to 0 in about:config. The alt+arrow_key ones work in every browser I've ever used. (IE on Windows, Opera on Windows and Linux, Chrome on Windows and Linux, Firefox on Windows and Linux, Konqueror on Linux, Arora on Linux)

Rob Weir got wind that a Slovakian tech site had been discussing the non-randomness of Microsoft's intended-to-be-randombrowserchoicescreen, which went into effect on European Windows 7 systems last week. He did some testing and found that indeed the order in which the five browser choices appear on the selection screen is far from random — though probably not intentionally slanted. He then proceeds to give Microsoft a lesson in random-shuffle algorithms. "This computational problem has been known since the earliest days of computing. There are 5 well-known approaches: 3 good solutions, 1 acceptable solution that is slower than necessary and 1 bad approach that doesn’t really work. Microsoft appears to have picked the bad approach. But I do not believe there is some nefarious intent to this bug. It is more in the nature of a 'naive algorithm,' like the bubble sort, that inexperienced programmers inevitably will fall upon when solving a given problem. I bet if we gave this same problem to 100 freshmen computer science majors, at least 1 of them would make the same mistake. But with education and experience, one learns about these things. And one of the things one learns early on is to reach for Knuth. ... The lesson here is that getting randomness on a computer cannot be left to chance. You cannot just throw Math.random() at a problem and stir the pot and expect good results."

My solution back in high school, which was the last time I ran into Websense (I'm in college now), was to get a portable app named TorFox or something of the sort. Of course, since I'm a firm believer in the idea that censoring information is a cure that is invariably worse than the disease, I proceeded to distribute it. To my classmates at first, but I told them to keep distributing it, and also gave it to anyone who asked. No idea if they've gotten it to block Tor yet though.

In addition to what wayland++ said, there's also the fact that the Perl 6 implementation on Parrot, called Rakudo, is intended to be able to mix programming languages with great ease. For example, one syntax that's been bandied about is this:
use v6;
# Perl 6 goes here
{
use P5;
# Hey, now I'm writing Perl 5 code!
}
# I'm writing Perl 6 again!
The amazing thing is that the object models will be able to interact, which means that CPAN modules will be trivially usable. That's a different kind of interop from what I showed above, and it's working (to a degree) now. Of course, the languages it works between are Cardinal (Ruby on Parrot), PIR (Parrot's native language), and Rakudo (Perl 6 on Parrot). The syntax is currently like this:
use opengl:from<PIR>;